Closing the Digital Divide More Imperative than Ever

by James A. Bacon

As K-12 schools, community colleges and universities shift ever more learning online, the so-called “digital divide” — disparate access to high-speed Internet access and computers — is looming as a bigger problem than ever before.

A new analysis by the State Council on Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) finds that more than 200,000 K-12 students (14%) and more than 60,000 college students (10%) lack broadband subscriptions in the home. The survey also found that 173,000 K-12 students (12%) and nearly 23,000 college students (4%) lack a laptop or desktop computer.

The lack of access to broadband is most acute in rural areas, where broadband infrastructure is spottiest, but is widespread in Virginia’s urban areas as well. Half of all students without devices live in urban areas.

“The research looked at whether students actually had broadband service in the home,” said Tom Allison, SCHEV’s senior associate for finance and innovation policy and author of the report, “rather than if it was available in their area. That is important because a household might have a dozen companies to choose from, but won’t benefit if they can’t afford it.”

“There’s a lot we don’t know about what college will look like in the fall, but one thing we do know is that much more of it will be conducted and experienced online,” Allison added.

I was chatting a day or two ago with a board member of the Virginia Community College System, who told me that, due to a lack of access at home, students in non-metropolitan areas are packing community-college parking lots to avail themselves of the college hotspots. At least they are adapting. Most K-12 students aren’t old enough to drive, even if they have cars, and they don’t have that option.

Governor Ralph Northam has made investment in rural broadband a priority, but I cannot find any new references to the administration taking any additional measures to address the digital divide in the context of schools adapting to the COVID-19 epidemic. That job has fallen to the school districts themselves. From what I can tell, the Roanoke Times has done the best job among Virginia’s newspapers of covering that particular issue.

Providing broadband infrastructure is not a traditional responsibility of schools,  but broadband has moved to the top of the list of the Coalition of Small and Rural Schools of Virginia, a group of nearly 80 of the state’s 132 division. There isn’t a short-term solution within the means of school districts to bridge the gap entirely. However, many local school districts in western Virginia are giving it their best try.

  • City of Bristol Public Schools has acquired hot spots for students and worked with local Internet providers to provide high-speed access to 100 students who have been identified as being in need.
  • Louisa County Public schools, which estimates that half its students lack reliable Internet access, have deployed 22 Wireless on Wheels units throughout the county.
  • Cumberland County Public Schools is equipping buses with hot spots from the public library and taking them throughout the county. Hot spots are being placed in churches and community locations.
  • Halifax County is putting hot spots in every school building and equipping every student with a Chromebook so they can download materials at school without connecting at home.
  • Middlesex County schools are creating Wireless on Wheels units with funding from Charlottesville-based Sun Tribe Solar, which provides solar energy to the county’s schools.
  • Brunswick County schools are using a portion of its federal CARES Act relief funds to create hot spots.

Bacon’s bottom line:

The digital-divide issue is entirely foreseeable. Many school districts with modest resources have acted proactively to deal with it. It may not be possible to guarantee that every K-12 student has access to laptops and broadband, but between CARES Act funding, local philanthropic support, and a district’s own resources, there is no excuse for failing to close at least part of the gap.

If school districts close their schools and shift to online learning, the responsibility falls on them to address the digital divide. Woe be unto any school administration that settles for blaming others for their problems.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

39 responses to “Closing the Digital Divide More Imperative than Ever”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Most device “hot spots” are basically cellular based and do not have broadband speeds. If the device is portable – it’s cellular.

    Wi-Fi IS broadband if it is at a school that has a broadband connection.

    the two are not the same and the hotspots cannot really support things like video or any kind of moving of a lot of data quickly.

    And it’s going to take YEARS to get broadband to rural… it’s just not going to happen in weeks or months. So what to do now?

    A lot of software and learning does not have to be “online” as long as it can be downloaded at a broadband location then moved to where there is not broadband to be used.

    Schools have never had to figure this out before – and given all the hate and discontent – you’d think none of them were interested but as Jim points out – there is a lot of innovation going on right now.

    And someday, when in-person resumes, these other technologies may prove to be useful for kids who need more time on task – at home.

    It may also provide to kids – instruction the school system cannot afford to provide in-person – like foreign languages or college prep subjects.

    1. I help connect our employees working remotely and I don’t agree with your assessment of cellular. While fiber and coax are preferable, cellular can provide adequate bandwidth for an individual to work or learn remotely. Not ideal, but it can work.

      If a particular location isn’t close to a tower, or the signal is weak, they may need special equipment or a repeater.

      The routers I provide for employees in remote areas work better in my home that what I have myself. I know this because I have one ready to deploy for an employee that I’m testing now.

      I live in a remote area and am using fixed wireless. The service is okay most of the time, but I will occasionally drop off when participating in a web conference for example.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        It depends on your location, right? I’m in the woods about 2 miles from the tower and it sucks.

        I’ve been all over the country with my hot spots. In some places, it’s good – in other places not – and in some places, no signal at all.

        I just don’t think giving everyone a hotspot as a method to do remote learning will work – for everyone.

        Don’t you need 5mb or better for reasonable service?

        I have friends who live up a hollow south of Cville. They have some kind of Verizon cannister-looking device that gives them decent internet, and he was able to work remotely as a pediatric specialist but it was not cheap.

        Cellular has gotten better over the years.. my original hotspot didn’t even get 1 mb….

        wouldn’t you agree that someone in the woods 2-3 miles from a tower is just not going to get decent service?

        1. Cellar towers coverage radius is 45 miles, so there is another issue if you’re only 2 miles from a cell tower.

        2. I don’t have time for a detailed answer, but you are right about there being no simple, one size fits all solution that will work seamlessly for everyone, and can be deployed tomorrow. It’s complicated.

          As to your personal situation, 2 miles is actually quite close if there are no obstructions or other issues. But not all towers are used by all carriers. Who is your provider? Do you know if that carrier provides service from the tower 2 miles away?

          Additionally, cell reception is somewhat like broadcast TV. The type and placement of the antenna is very important, as is the receiver itself.

          For TV, rabbit ears in the basement isn’t as good as an large antenna on the roof of a three story building. It’s similar for cellular. There are better antenna’s available than the teeny tiny ones that come built into most cell phones and hot spots. The antenna also needs to be placed appropriately.

          There’s much more to it but I hope that helps.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’ve picked up towers 20+ miles away when in a fairly treeless valley with a tower on a mountain… My impression is that it is primarily-light-of-sight. If I can see the tower – I usually get pretty good reception. I’ve used it hundreds of times all over the country including places where I don’t actually have a cell phone connection – it does depend on which network sometimes.

            I have also used car-top type antennas –

            but when you’re taking about schools and hot spots – I don’t think they’re gonna be doing antennas for folks homes. Either the hot spot works or it does not and in rural areas with a lot of trees – they may not do so well.

            At my local school – they are talking “hot spot” but it’s a cellular modem – with an antenna in a place like a community center where the kids come to it…

            We have a library on the fringe of our rural area and even though the library itself is closed, their WiFi is on – and the parking lots has folks parked in it all day long – and even at night as folks from the rural areas drive to get connected.

            2 miles is close if there were no 80 foot trees in between!

            I can walk or drive around and find better signals sometimes.

            It’s a Verizon Hotspot but that does not necessarily mean the tower is Verizon – they do sell each other capacity if they have it.

      2. I agree with you. I connect to my office from home a couple of days a week and the cellular connection to the network at my office, and to the internet, is more than twice as fast as the hard-wired Centurylink connection at my house.

        I do live about 2,000 feet from a verizon tower, though.

  2. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    This digital divide also affects business. It’s hard to have a viable business today without good internet access. Much even government business must be conducted online. Rural areas without good internet can’t support the businesses needed to be sustainable and grow.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Yes, but transaction based connectivity does not require a broadband connection – for years – it has worked off of dial-up.

      cellular is even better than dial-up but not as good as broadband.

      We’ve been all over the country out in the middle of nowhere and businesses take credit cards just about everywhere.. restaurants, campgrounds, gas stations, etc..

      Satellite like Hughes is never going to work – it has a significant latency issue.

      What does seem to work but not cheap – telecommunications towers:

      https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/rural-widewater-residents-just-months-away-from-an-internet-connection/article_e3f70750-b534-5de5-a70f-ae922a71678d.html

      What I do not understand is why internet cable cannot be put on existing power poles… that already provide power and telephone to most places…

      That would seem to be – from an infrastructure perspective a less heavy lift so I’m wondering if this is a business competition issue.

      Our electric cooperative, a few years back, said they were going to offer internet on it’s infrastructure – and then all of a sudden – it dropped.

      So I suspect there is a regulation issue.

      1. Cellar data (currently 4G in most areas) is capable of providing 5-12 Mbps, which is considered broadband service.

        You also don’t want Signal cable near high voltage, it interferes with signal (internet) transmission.

        1. I work with providers for my job. Cable companies do use power poles in some areas. They must get permission and pay for that, however. The cables are shielded.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            thanks…now I know!

          2. No amount of shielding is going to protect signal cable from High Voltage. It’s a faux pax to run signal cable and 120V in the same bundle.

            Shielding is for crosstalk, not EMI.

          3. I believe it’s a fiber backbone and coax to the home. There zero question that Cable companies use power poles, however. That was the original question.

          4. MAdams,

            Please see item 13 at the link below.

            http://www.psc.state.fl.us/ConsumerAssistance/UtilityPoleDescriptions

          5. Again, low voltage 110-220V you’re fine as long as you follow NEC and other applicable codes.

            If you’re lashing the cable in an aerial manner close to or in porximity high voltage >1500VAC, you’ll need to observe defined separation to avoid the corona effect.

            http://www.annsgarden.com/poles/poles.htm

          6. I also didn’t indicate that they don’t use them, I indicated that they require separation of a prescribed length.

            Also, as I stated below no about of shielding is going to stop the corona effect regarding >1500VAC which is what is considered high voltage.

            The NEC prescribes the separation I’m speaking of.

        2. idiocracy Avatar
          idiocracy

          Outside plant telephone cables are shielded, and it’s NOT to protect against crosstalk.

          1. Shielding is used to combat crosstalk as well as EMI. They also employ individual twisted pairs for that.

        3. idiocracy Avatar
          idiocracy

          In the UK, though, outside plant telephone cables are not shielded.

          But in the UK, they aren’t run on joint-use poles.

          Seems that the shielding helps cancel out the inductive coupling from powerlines into the twisted pairs, and isn’t otherwise needed.

          The way this works is that the shield is well grounded (every 1/4 mile at least, and everywhere the cable is accessed for splices and terminals—usually to the multi-grounded neutral if one is available) and actually carries some of the return current for the adjacent powerlines. The opposing current flow through the shield helps to cancel out the inductive coupling from the adjacent powerlines.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            okay… starting to get down in the weeds for me… connect this back to rural internet… thanks!

      2. idiocracy Avatar
        idiocracy

        If they use fiber it eliminates concerns about interference from powerlines.

        As far as rural broadband, it’s not a regulation issue, it’s a cost issue. Verizon could deploy FIOS into the rural areas they serve but the return on investment is apparently not there for them to do it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          idiocracy – have you seen what a Verizon FIOS wire looks like compared to a Comcast/Xfinity cable? The FIOS one – even though fiber optic is not at all like the Comcast cable.

          Right?

          I guess I would have thought that anywhere Verizon already has a telephone wire – they could also string a fiber-optic wire… or just use the fiber-optic wire by itself since it also can support a landline phone.

          1. idiocracy Avatar
            idiocracy

            Yes. The FIOS cable, between the central office and Fios distribution hub(which contains the optical splitters), is a single-mode outside plant fiber optic cable. It looks identical to the Comcast/Xfinity cable between the headend and the optical node, which is also single-mode outside plant fiber optic cable. I am unsure of the fiber counts of the cables involved, but Comcast seems to use 12 fiber cables a lot and I would not be surprised if Verizon is the same.

            The only way you can tell the difference between these is either by the label (there are often sleeves placed over the cable at every pole to identify the owner) or if they are overlashed with existing coax, in which case it’s Xfinity/Comcast, or if they are overlashed with existing twisted pair, in which case it’s Verizon.

            If it’s just a lonesome fiber cable by itself, it could be Xfinity, Verizon, NOVEC, Cox….the list goes on….that’s why they are usually labelled at each pole.

            Between the FIOS distribution hub and the customer what is used (from my observation) is a flat fiber optic “drop” cable that contains 6 fibers, which goes to what I’ll refer to as a fiber optic terminal (not sure what Verizon calls it) that splits the 6 fibers out to 6 ports, to which are connected to individual customer premises via flat fiber optic “drop” cable that contains a single fiber.

            Between the Comcast/Xfinity optical node and the customer is a combination of coaxial hardline, line extenders, splitters, and taps. This is the part of the Comcast/Xfinity network that bears the closest resemblance to cable TV distribution of old, except that it’s 2-way and the bandwidth is now much higher (860MHz in most systems; in the 1980s, many cable TV distribution systems operated at 300MHz max!). This is the “coaxial” part of the hybrid fiber coax “HFC” network. So it’s headend -> fiber -> optical node -> coax -> customer. The fiber portion of the network can be many miles long; the coaxial portion of the network is perhaps a mile long at most.

            Yes, Verizon can string fiber optic cable anywhere they already have a telephone wire. It is apparently the cost of doing this that stops Verizon from doing it.

            While I’m on the subject of Verizon, one of the things I found odd about their FIOS deployments is that they rarely installed FIOS to commercial areas. Perhaps they were afraid of cannibalizing their overpriced T1 lines that businesses were otherwise using? Not to worry, though–Xfinity/Comcast has been aggressively installing and marketing their service to business customers who have been all too happy to ditch the Verizon T1 line for $400/month and replace it with much faster Xfinity service that might be only $100/month.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Thanks much for sharing your knowledge!

            Yes at home yard level – you can cut a Verizon cable super easy but the Comcast is still a much tougher cut – still coax.

          3. idiocracy Avatar
            idiocracy

            They should be putting those cables in a conduit to protect them from the weed wacker, and they shouldn’t be leaving them strung along the ground. So if they’re getting damaged due to yard work, it’s a sloppy installation.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Oh, it was buried… 😉

          5. idiocracy Avatar
            idiocracy

            Should be buried at least 12 inches deep. But call MISS UTILITY next time.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            planting shrubs… not thinking about what was underneath!

            who would think to call Miss Utility when planting shrubs?

            building a deck – yes… planting shrubs… ??

            I think – as easy as it is to cut it -that it needs a more durable cover but I learned my lesson….

            Also – when it goes bad – not my fault – they don’t even try to find where it’s bad – they just drop a whole new line… then
            have someone out later to bury it …with a machine pulling a blade…

          7. Verizon has stopped making significant investments in the wireline part of the business year’s ago. Wireless is the money maker for them now. Cable companies have largely begun filling the gap.

            Your question about utility poles was important, however, because that is the cheapest way to reach many rural areas. And the shielding on coaxial cable does protect it from interference. That’s what it’s there for.

            NEC is about voltage induction. That can be a problem with copper cables but it’s an entirely different issue than interference. NEC standards protect against the transfer of voltage from one cable to another.

            As you drive, you will see high voltage on the highest part of the utility pole, then lower voltages for distribution below them, then almost half way down the poles is where the cables for data and communication are placed.

            And as Idiocracy explained, fiber can be run on utility poles and is impervious to EMI, RFI etc. Power companies sometimes even run their own fiber strapped right onto power cables. This is normally done for their own use in managing the power infrastucture, however, not to provide Internet to residential customers.

  3. vaconsumeradvocate Avatar
    vaconsumeradvocate

    They keep telling us that satellite and other over the air service will evolve to serve rural areas but for years now, it hasn’t. No one wants to invest in enough fiber to do the job. There are no incentives to ensure that everyone is served. The only incentive to providers is to make as much money as possible. In the case of broadband service, this means that providers serve those they can make the most money from and say “someone else” will take care of others. Localities have no desire or means to force providers to serve an entire geographic area, either. This means that there are holes in the service that are not profitable. Instead of spreading costs over broad areas, each area has to support itself. If we’d done that with telephone service, many wouldn’t have it even today, but we’ve ignored or forgotten that reality in the push to do everything by competition and short term profit goals. Until we find a way to change this, the problems will continue. We need ways to motivate competitors to serve everyone with robust, dependable, affordable broadband or some areas are not going to be able to support business, education, health care, or other necessities of modern life.

    1. The new satellite technology I believe you are referencing is Starlink. Google it. Starlink promises to be significantly better than existing satellite Internet, but I would always prefer a physical connection if at all possible.

  4. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    A significant barrier to wireless broadband was the Obama administration’s broadband financing program. I represented several rural Virginia school divisions that had Educational Broadband Service radio license (the 2.5 GHz band). FCC rules allowed EBS license holders (limited by rule to schools, colleges and certain nonprofit educational entities) to lease essentially 95% of their capacity for up to 30 years.

    I negotiated these leases with several wireless broadband companies, one a large company and three small providers. The big guy was later acquired by an even larger company. The three smaller ones were unable to get financing even though their licenses covered parts of small metro areas as well as rural sections. The Obama funding process took so long to identify eligible entities and award funding that private sources of capital refused to make any funding commitments to the smaller companies until they knew who would get federal funding.

    During the interim, two of the companies simply went bankrupt. The survivor dumped all but two of its employees and hung on as a shell company. It even partnered with UVA in a trial but could not attract any funding. A little over a year ago, I worked with my clients to consent to a transfer of the survivor’s leases to a larger company at about a breakeven price, according to the owner.

    Having been involved in this market since c. 2006, it’s very clear to me that had the federal government stayed out of the broadband stimulus, at least two of the three companies would have been operational and would be providing broadband connections in several rural markets. The private funding that had tentatively been agreed to would not have waited for the clumsy federal government to act.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so it’s something Trump can fix?

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
        TooManyTaxes

        Too late now. The companies were dead by 2011-12.

  5. Atlas Rand Avatar
    Atlas Rand

    I’m curious how it works in the other direction. If I have Internet service available, but refuse to pay the exorbitant prices, how does that work? Will the school force me to buy Internet service in order for my child to complete assignments online? Or will they give my child one of the hotspots that they’re providing?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    My understanding is that the internet companies offer basic service that is limited in what it can connect to and is capped on how much bandwidth.

    The term “hotspot” is generic. Where I live – it apparently means a cellular router – i.e. a device that connects to cellular then allows multiple people (with login credentials) to log in. They are putting them in places like churches and community centers for kids to access but the kids have to be brought there… and either remain in the car or on the grounds while they work.

    I do not think kids are getting individual hotspots… and in some places cellular hot spots don’t work anyhow.

    I have one that I use when I travel but here where I live – it barely can manage one mbyte…. pathetic… no way it can do video…

    Anyone who lives in a rural area with trees is not going to do well with a hotspot….

  7. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    Bezos and Musk are each working on their own low orbit satellite internet service. This is not to be confused with the likes of HughesNet which is much higher orbit, and thus much more prone to latency issues. I have heard there is a lot of promise with this solution, and may eliminate our need for cabled service.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      As if there isn’t enough junk up there already. How many satellites are we talking about?

      We built huge optical telescopes to have them rendered useless by streetlights. Although, admittedly one Hubble did put them out of their misery.

      I wonder what a launch trajectory will have to look like to make it through “the net”?

Leave a Reply